I've spotted what may be our first example of pseudolaw-driven violence from New Zealand. A guy called Rhys Warren opened fire on five police officers who were investigating a grow-op at his residence. Four were wounded.

Warren makes a habeas corpus application to miracle himself out of jail, claiming Parliament doesn't exist, he is a member of "a Maori incorporation", and "other Maori sovereignty arguments". Rejected as hopeless.

Warren appeals the habeas corpus result to the New Zealand Supreme Court, who toss the application as futile as Warren's jurisdiction arguments have been previously rejected.

The last decision points to three judgments that involve a Jay Maui Wallace, who was convicted by a jury of serious violence charges including threatening to kill, assault with intent to injure, possession of firearms and explosives:

This is interesting because it's unusual for most countries' highest courts to actually look at pseudolaw to any real degree. Two of the NZSC decisions are currently 'suppressed', awaiting the end of trial, which is a process I've not seen before. Courts in Canada just don't publish some decisions until a trial is ended, but I've not seen the practice of acknowledging judgments exist, but their contents are hidden.

Here's another Wallace decision which points to many other judgments on attacks on state/court jurisdiction: